Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 03:55:35 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 04:03:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 17:49:59, Amir Ban wrote: > >>But this division between engine and interface never came up in the >>considerations of Herik, Levy and the rest throughout their deliberations. It >>was suggested as a justification *after* the final decision. >> >>If the TD paid no attention to this detail, how can it make his decision >>right ? > >You can make a reasonable decision based on incorrect reasoning or >assumptions. And yes, that probably happened here as was very clear >during Mr. Zwanzgers explanation. > >>It didn't play any part in Zwanzger's desire to avoid a draw, either. > >How can you be so sure of that? He said he considered it unsportsmanlike >to claim the draw there. He explained that Jonny didn't know about 3 fold >rep. I find the relation logical. > >>What you are saying is that he couldn't claim a draw even if he wanted to, >>which is ridiculous. > >I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that the desire to play and >and the decision by the TD to allow this (well, not exactly, see above) >are defensible from my point of view, but only so because the engine didn't >know about 3 fold repetition. > >There would be no defending the ruling in any other case, but I consider >this a sufficient reason to play on. There come in other factors here like the >distinction between engine and interface and so on and so on, but those >are more like holy wars that'll never get a decision satisfying everyone, >despite at least 20 people here claiming that the matter is very clear and >reaching conclusions opposite each other. > >I'll give an example that's very close: > >Junior isn't having a lucky day and gets into a lost KNNKP ending vs an >amateur engine running under the ChessBase GUI. Suddenly, the amateur >announces Mate in 49 of out tablebases, but your opponent frowns and >realizes this is the CB GUI and not his engine (which doesn't support >tablebases at all). He requests to take back the move played by the GUI, >disable tablebases in GUI, and let the engine try to find the mate on its >own. > >Of course you know the engine can never find this mate on it's own, >so if you allow it you have a draw and if you refuse you get mated and >lose the chance for the world title. > >Do you consider it reasonable to allow him to do this? I do. Another scenario: Sjeng isn't having a lucky day and in move 16 of a tactical variation in Sicilian, suddenly the amateur opponent engine plays a brilliant sacrifice resulting in a forced win. But your opponent frowns and realizes this is the CB GUI and not his engine (which doesn't support book at all). He requests to take back the move played by the GUI, disable book in GUI, and let the engine try to find the move on its own. Of course you know the engine can never find this mate on its own, so if you allow it you are saved and if you refuse you lose the chance for the world title. Do you consider it reasonable to allow him to do this? I DON'T! > >But not everyone agrees, obviously. > >-- >GCP
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.